Copy of Copy of IWA outline PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Copy of Copy of IWA outline PDF

Description

IWA Outline PAPER TITLE: Seeing Is Not Always Believing

I. Introduction While caught in a Law & Order marathon, one will undeniably watch eyewitnesses testify in anything from rape to carjacking to robbery. These eyewitnesses, perched at the stand, answer questions from both sides with detail and, for the most part, determination. It is often times because of these testimonies that a jury reaches a decision, whether that be innocence or guilt. What is unknown to many, though, is how unreliable eyewitness testimony is -- even though it seems like a clear-cut concept on both Law & Order and real life. Humans are not as perfect as they would like to believe; forgetfulness and bias often manipulate one’s recollection of the event, leading the importance and validity of testimony to be questioned altogether. If one is to be held hostage, or something of that caliber, they most likely will not be studying their capture and their actions, but will look for an escape route. When it comes to trials, other factors must be heavily considered to assure a fair trial, like DNA evidence, alibis, and even human forgetfulness, to avoid legal fiascos like that of the he-said, she-said Gone Girl. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., renowned historian, has expressed that when it comes to recorded history, primary sources -- or “eyewitness history” (Schlesinger) -- has been “met with a certain skepticism and resistance from professional historians” (Schlesinger). Within the term ‘eyewitness’ is ‘eye’ -- indeed, seeing is not always believing. Inevitably, the importance placed on eyewitness testimony and the subsequent technique in which it is obtained must be changed in order to lead to fair trials and rightful arrests within America.

II. Subsection/Subheading 1 (should direct reader) - Human Nature/Overall Validity A. When it comes to humans, nobody is perfect; factors like bias and forgetfulness find their way into our own judgement, which undoubtedly can toy with

testimony. a. Scientific research has revealed that eyewitness memory is much more malleable and susceptible to error than is generally realized. (Wise/Dauphinais/Safer) i.

Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. (Arkowitz/Lilienfeld)

b. Although witnesses are never forced to make an identification in real-life, they may nonetheless feel pressured to make an identification in a biased lineup procedure. (LaPaglia/Chan) i.

Many criminal activities occur quickly and under non-optimal viewing conditions. For example, the presence of a weapon and remote viewing distance can harm the ability to accurately encode the perpetrator’s face. Further, many witnesses do not view a lineup until well after the event, which can seriously impair one’s ability to remember the perpetrator's appearance. (LaPaglia/Chan)

c. For example, a six-month delay separated the murders and the beginning of the criminal trial in the highly publicized O.J. Simpson case. During the delay between witnessing a crime and providing testimony, witnesses are often questioned by police investigators, lawyers, friends, and family members (LaPaglia/Chan).

III. Subsection/Subheading 2 (should direct reader) - Arresting The Innocent B. Since the weight placed on eyewitness testimony is too great and it fails to act extremely reliable, there are people behind bars right now because of its faults. a. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence

Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. (Arkowitz/Lilienfeld). b. Exonerations have been won in 37 states; 4832.5 is the current number of years served by all innocent; 70% of verdicts were the result of eyewitness testimony; 28% involved false confessions; 45% involved misapplication of forensic science. (Innocence Project). c. In the vast majority of our cases, DNA [identification] didn't exist at the season of the conviction, so prosecutors depended on different sorts of measurable science. It could be serology, which was the old A/B/O blood composing. It could be chomp marks. It could be fingerprints. It could be other criminological orders: tire marks, shoe print correlations, fiber examinations. None of these is impenetrable — some of them aren't even trustworthy — so we see a great deal of wrongful feelings coming from those. (Neufeld) d. Surveys show that most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. But although eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such reports. (Arkowitz/Lilienfeld). i.

As it happened, Cotton ended up in jail with a man named Bobby Poole, who was likewise in for assault and who so took after Cotton the two were frequently confused for each other. Poole in the long run yakked to another detainee that he was Jennifer Thompson's actual assailant. (Ryan)

e. All the more guilefully, police questioners can unknowingly ‘mentor’

individuals into having false recollections. (Bohannon)

V. Subsection/Subheading 3 (should direct reader) - Established Precautions C. The integrity of eyewitness testimony has been acknowledged as rather unreliable and steps have been taken to prevent issues with altered memory. a. Two states -- New Jersey and North Carolina -- require that all lineups be conducted sequentially and using a double-blind method, where the administrator does not know which person is the suspect. (Hansen) i.

‘The best way is with a computer system,’ Loftus says, with no police officers present to influence the witness. The computer would run the lineup all on its own, choosing similar-looking people from a large database of photos. Computerizing lineups may be expensive and complicated, but considering ‘the damage to those innocent people's lives, and the huge cost of compensations,’ Loftus says, ‘that's the future.’ (Bohannon).

b. Multiple witness testimony is an innovative trial procedure that the American Bar Association Action Commission to Reduce Court Costs and Delay is now investigating. Simply stated, multiple witness testimony is placing more than one witness on the stand at the same time. The witnesses do not speak at the same time. Instead, they testify alternately as the questions call for facts within their knowledge or expertise. (Nejelski and Shuart) i.

For example, in a major gambling prosecution, the United States Attorney called seven witnesses at once: the FBI agent in charge of the case, who identified the time and date of the recorded telephone calls; a tape expert who played the tape recorder; two

voice identification experts; a translator fluent in the four foreign languages used in the taped conversations; a gambling expert who interpreted special gambling terms; and an FBI agent who linked the meetings described on the tapes with actual rendezvous. (Nejelski and Shuart) c. In the vast majority of our cases, DNA [identification] didn't exist at the season of the conviction, so prosecutors depended on different sorts of measurable science. It could be serology, which was the old A/B/O blood composing. It could be chomp marks. It could be fingerprints. It could be other criminological orders: tire marks, shoe print correlations, fiber examinations. None of these is impenetrable — some of them aren't even trustworthy — so we see a great deal of wrongful feelings coming from those. (Neufeld). i.

Have RIGHTFULLY began to look for other clues in a case to lead law enforcement to the correct person.

ii.

Issue: All things considered, it's surely preferable to have DNA testing over not, but rather it's a misperception to envision that it will take care of the issue. Individuals think, Oh, now we have DNA confirm, so this issue will bit by bit vanish. In all actuality it doesn't vanish, in light of the fact that you can just utilize DNA testing in a little minority of rough wrongdoings. In the event that there's a drive-by shooting, there is no blood abandoned. In the event that there's a theft, there is no semen deserted. In numerous wrongdoings, police offices need to depend on less solid methods for examination to choose who to indict. (Neufeld)

VI. Conclusion - Projected Solution -

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS NOT EXTREMELY RELIABLE! Though sometimes it may be the only thing in a case, the weight placed on it must be greatly decreased. -

More multiple-witness testimony. -

-

More states need to adopt double-blind procedures. -

-

Great idea to co-mingle.

Police do not know, nor does the individual.

Its cons must be highlighted -- even during court. This ‘glass’ must be broken in order for us to not find it as compelling as we have. Have TV and movies work to focus more on every other factor, rather than emotion-driving eyewitness testimony....